Importing specific function vs exposing all in elm

When I import a library in elm, will importing only specific functions be more efficient than exposing everything ?

For example, when I import the Html module I usually just expose everything

import Html exposing (..)

This is convenient so as i keep writing I don't have to keep modifying the definition to add more Html tags, but is it efficient ? Will the compiler realize I don't need the entire library in my source code or will it import it all ?

asked Nov 15 '18 at 2:19

Nicola Pedretti

1,99411724

add a comment |

When I import a library in elm, will importing only specific functions be more efficient than exposing everything ?

For example, when I import the Html module I usually just expose everything

import Html exposing (..)

asked Nov 15 '18 at 2:19

Nicola Pedretti

1,99411724

add a comment |

When I import a library in elm, will importing only specific functions be more efficient than exposing everything ?

For example, when I import the Html module I usually just expose everything

import Html exposing (..)

asked Nov 15 '18 at 2:19

Nicola Pedretti

1,99411724

When I import a library in elm, will importing only specific functions be more efficient than exposing everything ?

For example, when I import the Html module I usually just expose everything

import Html exposing (..)

elm

asked Nov 15 '18 at 2:19

Nicola Pedretti

1,99411724

asked Nov 15 '18 at 2:19

Nicola Pedretti

1,99411724

asked Nov 15 '18 at 2:19

Nicola Pedretti

1,99411724

asked Nov 15 '18 at 2:19

Nicola Pedretti

1,99411724

asked Nov 15 '18 at 2:19

Nicola Pedretti

1,99411724

add a comment |

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

I don't think there is a performance advantage in importing exactly the functions that you want to use. As farmio mentioned, before 0.19 the whole module is imported anyway and after 0.19 you can pass --optimize to eliminate dead code.

However, I strongly recommend against importing all the functions exposed by a module because it makes code very hard to read. Imagine this case:

import Html exposing (..)

import Svg exposing (..)

import Html.Attributes exposing (..)

import Svg.Attributes exposing (..)

We have pulled all the functions from those four modules into our own namespace, so everytime I read the name of a function which is not defined I have to guess where that function is coming from. The alternative is just exposing types but never functions:

import Html exposing (Html)

import Svg exposing (Svg)

import Html.Attributes as HAttr

import Svg.Attributes as SAttr

In this way, not once you will have to guess where the function is coming from.

answered Nov 15 '18 at 8:52

Ju Liu

3,681817

add a comment |

Since elm 0.19 the compiler has function level dead code elimination. So your compiled App should be the same either way.

I'm not sure if exposing only used functions would shorten compile time tough.

https://elm-lang.org/blog/small-assets-without-the-headache

answered Nov 15 '18 at 6:05

farmio

2,1972916

add a comment |

Your Answer

StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});

}
});

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53311507%2fimporting-specific-function-vs-exposing-all-in-elm%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

2 Answers
2

active

oldest

votes

However, I strongly recommend against importing all the functions exposed by a module because it makes code very hard to read. Imagine this case:

import Html exposing (..)

import Svg exposing (..)

import Html.Attributes exposing (..)

import Svg.Attributes exposing (..)

import Html exposing (Html)

import Svg exposing (Svg)

import Html.Attributes as HAttr

import Svg.Attributes as SAttr

In this way, not once you will have to guess where the function is coming from.

answered Nov 15 '18 at 8:52

Ju Liu

3,681817

add a comment |

However, I strongly recommend against importing all the functions exposed by a module because it makes code very hard to read. Imagine this case:

import Html exposing (..)

import Svg exposing (..)

import Html.Attributes exposing (..)

import Svg.Attributes exposing (..)

import Html exposing (Html)

import Svg exposing (Svg)

import Html.Attributes as HAttr

import Svg.Attributes as SAttr

In this way, not once you will have to guess where the function is coming from.

answered Nov 15 '18 at 8:52

Ju Liu

3,681817

add a comment |

However, I strongly recommend against importing all the functions exposed by a module because it makes code very hard to read. Imagine this case:

import Html exposing (..)

import Svg exposing (..)

import Html.Attributes exposing (..)

import Svg.Attributes exposing (..)

import Html exposing (Html)

import Svg exposing (Svg)

import Html.Attributes as HAttr

import Svg.Attributes as SAttr

In this way, not once you will have to guess where the function is coming from.

answered Nov 15 '18 at 8:52

Ju Liu

3,681817

However, I strongly recommend against importing all the functions exposed by a module because it makes code very hard to read. Imagine this case:

import Html exposing (..)

import Svg exposing (..)

import Html.Attributes exposing (..)

import Svg.Attributes exposing (..)

import Html exposing (Html)

import Svg exposing (Svg)

import Html.Attributes as HAttr

import Svg.Attributes as SAttr

In this way, not once you will have to guess where the function is coming from.

answered Nov 15 '18 at 8:52

Ju Liu

3,681817

answered Nov 15 '18 at 8:52

Ju Liu

3,681817

answered Nov 15 '18 at 8:52

Ju Liu

3,681817

answered Nov 15 '18 at 8:52

Ju Liu

3,681817

add a comment |

Since elm 0.19 the compiler has function level dead code elimination. So your compiled App should be the same either way.

I'm not sure if exposing only used functions would shorten compile time tough.

https://elm-lang.org/blog/small-assets-without-the-headache

answered Nov 15 '18 at 6:05

farmio

2,1972916

add a comment |

Since elm 0.19 the compiler has function level dead code elimination. So your compiled App should be the same either way.

I'm not sure if exposing only used functions would shorten compile time tough.

https://elm-lang.org/blog/small-assets-without-the-headache

answered Nov 15 '18 at 6:05

farmio

2,1972916

add a comment |

Since elm 0.19 the compiler has function level dead code elimination. So your compiled App should be the same either way.

I'm not sure if exposing only used functions would shorten compile time tough.

https://elm-lang.org/blog/small-assets-without-the-headache

answered Nov 15 '18 at 6:05

farmio

2,1972916

Since elm 0.19 the compiler has function level dead code elimination. So your compiled App should be the same either way.

I'm not sure if exposing only used functions would shorten compile time tough.

https://elm-lang.org/blog/small-assets-without-the-headache

answered Nov 15 '18 at 6:05

farmio

2,1972916

answered Nov 15 '18 at 6:05

farmio

2,1972916

answered Nov 15 '18 at 6:05

farmio

2,1972916

answered Nov 15 '18 at 6:05

farmio

2,1972916

add a comment |

draft saved

draft discarded

Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!

Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid …

Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.

draft saved

draft discarded

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Sign up or log in

StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});

Post as a guest

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

Name

Required, but never shown

This page is only for reference, If you need detailed information, please check here

搜尋此網誌

Vfrdtyky